DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species II in the reply filed on 7/3/26 is acknowledged. Note that this election resulted in no claims being withdrawn.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
a processing device in claim 1. For purposes of examination: this term is interpreted as comprising, a semiconductor manufacturing device or equipped with a space for processing a substrate, an support capable of supporting the substrate, and a gas supply unit for supplying various gases to be used for treating the substrate (Applicant Specification Publication [0027]) and its equivalents.
The aforementioned limitation meets the three-prong test outlined herein since:
(A) the term “device” is a generic placeholder,
(B) the generic placeholder is modified by functional language (e.g. “processing”), and
(C) the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structures, material or acts for performing the claimed function.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 5 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In re claim 5, the phrase "plasma type scrubber" renders the claim indefinite because the word "type" extends the scope to an otherwise definite expression. For purposes of examination: this phrase/term is interpreted as a plasma scrubber.1
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2, 6-7 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang (KR 20090079433 A) in view of Ha et al (US5779863A).
In re Claim 1, Chang discloses an exhaust gas treatment device (Fig. 1) for treating an exhaust gas (gas from 10) emitted from a processing device (organic waste gas through a condensation-adsorption process) by using a plurality of cryocoolers (30, 31), comprising:
- a preprocessor (60) configured to cool the exhaust gas (the heat exchanger 60 for regenerating heat may be mounted at the rear of the filter unit 20 to sharply drop the temperature of the waste ga) emitted from a pump (10) provided within the processing device () by using the plurality of cryocoolers (30,31) and generate a plurality of groups of condensed exhaust gases (gas leaving 301, 311)
However, Chang does not explicitly teach, a purifier including a plurality of scrubbers configured to purify the plurality of groups of condensed exhaust gases, respectively.
On the other hand, Ha teaches a purifier (Fig. 1 purification unit) including a plurality of scrubbers (a dry scrubber and a wet scrubber) configured to purify the plurality of groups of condensed exhaust gases, respectively. (Col 4:26-43: to remove silicon hydrides, e.g., NH3 and AsH3, tetraethoxysilane (TEOS), halogens and halides. The exhaust stream can next be filtered to remove dust, particles, droplets, and the like, having sizes greater than, for example, 20 μm. Additionally, particles and dust may be removed in a filter upstream from the scrubber)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have taken the teachings of Chang and to have modified them by having a purifier including a plurality of scrubbers configured to purify the plurality of groups of condensed exhaust gases of Chang as taught by Ha in order to remove dust, particles, droplets, and the like, (See Ha Col 36-44), without yielding unpredictable results.
In re Claim 2, Modified Chang teaches wherein the preprocessor (60) includes:
- a first cooling tank (303) including a first cryocooler (30) configured to cool the exhaust gas to a first temperature (necessarily has a first temperature) and generate a first group of condensed exhaust gases (gas leaving 301); and
- a second cooling tank (313) including a second cryocooler (31) configured to cool the exhaust gas to a second temperature lower than the first temperature (Ha Col 5:41-46) and
generate a second group of condensed exhaust gases (gas leaving 311).
In re Claim 6, Modified Chang teaches wherein the plurality of cryocoolers (30,31) is connected in series (See Fig.1 connected in series) in order to allow the exhaust gas to sequentially pass through the plurality of cryocoolers.2
In re Claim 7, Modified Chang teaches wherein each of the plurality of cryocoolers (30,31) is connected to one of the plurality of scrubbers (connected to Ha scrubbers).
In re Claim 9, Modified Chang teaches wherein the purifier (Ha Fig. 1 purification unit) further includes: a plurality of gas tanks (Ha 7 and 11) configured to liquefy the plurality of groups of condensed exhaust gases (Ha Col 4:11-21: condensed gas removed in the liquid state), respectively.
Claim 3-5 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang (KR 20090079433 A) as modified by Ha et al (US5779863A), herein, further in view of Nozawa et al (EP0933120A1).
In re Claim 3, Modified Chang teaches wherein the purifier (Ha Fig. 1) includes: a wet scrubber (Ha wet scrubber) configured to treat the first group of condensed exhaust gases by a wet method (Ha Col 4:26-43).
However, Modified Chang does not explicitly teach, “a combustion scrubber configured to treat the second group of condensed exhaust gases by combustion.”
On the other hand, Nozawa teaches a combustion scrubber (16) configured to treat the second group of condensed exhaust gases by combustion ([0026]: combustor treats exhaust gas).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have taken the teachings of modified Chang and to have modified them by having a combustion scrubber as taught by Nozawa configured to treat the second group of condensed exhaust gases of modified Chang by combustion as taught by Nozawa, in order to decompose exhaust gas (See Nozawa [0025]), without yielding unpredictable results.
In re Claim 4, Modified Chang does not explicitly teach wherein the preprocessor further includes: a third cooling tank including a third cryocooler configured to cool the exhaust gas to a third temperature lower than the second temperature and generate a third group of condensed exhaust gases.
However, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a third cooling tank including a third cryocooler configured to cool the exhaust gas to a third temperature, since it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involve only routine skill in the art. In re Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
After the modification, in view of the teachings of Ha, the third temperature lower than the second temperature and generate a third group of condensed exhaust gases (See Ha Col 5:41-46).
Claim 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang (KR 20090079433 A) as modified by Ha et al (US5779863A) and Nozawa et al (EP0933120A1) further in view of Moon et al (KR 102063786 B1).
In re Claim 5, Modified Chang does not explicitly teach, wherein the purifier (Ha purification unit) further includes: a plasma type scrubber configured to treat the third group of condensed exhaust gases with plasma.
On the other hand, Moon teaches a plasma type scrubber (200) configured to treat the third group of condensed exhaust gases with plasma (Page 3 ¶2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have taken the teachings of modified Chang and to have modified them by having a plasma type scrubber configured to treat the third group of condensed exhaust gases of modified Chang with plasma as taught by Moon, in order to purify exhaust gas (See Moon ¶3-4) without yielding unpredictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IBRAHIM M ADENIJI whose telephone number is (571)272-5939. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jianying Atkisson can be reached at 571-270-7740. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/IBRAHIM A. MICHAEL ADENIJI/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JOEL M ATTEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
1 See MPEP §2173.05(b)(II)(E)
2 The recitation of " in order to allow the exhaust gas to sequentially pass through the plurality of cryocoolers" recited in the claim has been considered a recitation of intended use. The prior art structure above is capable of performing as intended. It has been held that the recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitation. (MPEP 2114).
Prosecution Insights